BAYAN vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. 138570
October 10, 2000

FACTS:

The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on
August 30, 1951, to further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the
treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory,
armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft.

On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US
Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended
the presence of US military bases in the Philippines.

On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other
things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).This resulted to a
series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998.
Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by
Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through
respondent Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the Senate of
the Philippines,the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA, for
concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners – as legislators, non-

governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers – assail the constitutionality of the
VFA and impute to herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the
agreement.

Petitioner contends, under the provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops,
or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are
sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty,b.) it must be duly concurred in by the senate,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if
so required by congress, and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that,
what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least
two-thirds of all the members of the senate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of
Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
RULING:

Yes. Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving
foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the

concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII,
which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec.
25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP
and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall
not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate by the other
contracting state”.

The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international
agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international
agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or
particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.

In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence
of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional
provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to
the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the
same provision is immaterial.